Motion to Compel – Page 62 – Electronic Discovery Law

Custom Hardware Eng?g & Consulting, Inc. v. Dowell, No. 4:10CV00653 ERW, 2011 WL 10496 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Relying heavily on Ameriwood Industries v. Liberman, No. 4:06CV524-DJS, 2006 WL 3825291 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 27, 2006), court ordered the discovery of ESI on defendant?s computers in accordance with three-step procedure: 1) imaging of hard drive by forensic expert, 2) recovery of ESI from that image, 3) defense counsel?s review and production of responsive non-privilege information; upon parties? disagreement regarding search terms to be utilized in step three, court rejected defendant?s arguments that plaintiff?s proposed terms would result in an ?unreasonable number of irrelevant results? and the production of privilege information and also rejected defendant?s proposed search terms as too narrow, where defendant proposed that only exact matches, including in capitalization and phrasing, be considered

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, trade secret misappropria-tion, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and other related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of hard drive

Moore v. Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr., No. 11-CV-3552 (KAM)(JO), 11-CV-3624 (KAM)(JO), 2012 WL 1078000 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: District Court denied defendant?s objections to Magistrate Judge?s ruling denying request for forensic examination of plaintiffs? computers where plaintiffs each verified that they had conducted a search of all email accounts and produced all responsive emails and where both plaintiffs were told by their ISP that no further emails could be retrieved; court reasoned that there was no reason to discredit plaintiffs? representations and found that forensic examinations would be overly broad, intrusive, expensive, and would likely reveal irrelevant material

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic examination of computers and email accounts

Chevron Corp. v. Wienberg Group, No. 11-406 (JMF), 2012 WL 4480697 (D.D.C. Sept. 26, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing the state of the ?modern privilege log? Judge Grimm noted the strong trend toward mechanically produced privilege logs with boilerplate information which do not sufficiently describe the documents and the nature of the privilege and ordered defendant to produce factual work product and to properly describe the redacted portions and indicated that he would hold defendant to their 26(g) obligations ?ruthlessly?

Nature of Case: Environmental damages

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged/work product ESI

Howell v. Buckeye Ranch, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-1014, 2012 WL 5265170 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 1, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel Plaintiff?s production of her user names and passwords for all social media sites and indicated that Defendants were free to request relevant information from the private portions of Plaintiff?s social media accounts which Plaintiff?s counsel could access and produce and that Plaintiff remained obligated to preserve all relevant information and that if any information had been deleted, Plaintiff?s counsel should advise Defendants? counsel and attempt to recover the deleted data

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Social Media (Facebook)

Beck v. Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc., No. 04-1391(JDB), 2012 WL 10817176 (D.D.C. Sep. 25, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Defendant?s lackluster effort to retrieve e-mail after hard drives crashed constituted a conscious disregard of its preservation obligations that could fairly be described as gross negligence or recklessness, and warranted sanctions in the form of an adverse inference instruction; court declined to impose sanctions for defendant?s failure to preserve telephone recordings since there was insufficient evidence that any relevant calls were actually recorded and should have been preserved

Nature of Case: Consumer Protection Procedures Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: E-mails and telephone call recordings

Excel Gold Products, Inc. v. MacNeill Eng?g Co., Inc., No. 11 C 1928, 2012 WL 1570772 (May 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Despite finding that plaintiff had not produced sufficient information regarding its review procedures to establish that reasonable steps were taken to prevent inadvertent disclosure of privileged information, the court found that concerns of ?overriding fairness? precluded waiver where plaintiff had attempted to enter into a clawback agreement and where defense counsel?s rejection of such an agreement (because there was a protective order) could ?readily? have been interpreted to mean that inadvertently produced materials would be returned without dispute; plaintiff was ordered to conduct privilege review of documents produced, to the extent not already done

Electronic Data Involved: Inadvertently produced ESI

Brocade Commc?ns Sys. v. A10 Networks, Inc., No. 10-CV-03428-LHK, 2012 WL 70428 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Finding that plaintiff had shown good cause for requiring production of ?not reasonably accessible information,? the court granted plaintiff?s motion to inspect an individual defendant?s hard drive noting that such inspections had been allowed by other courts in cases of alleged misappropriation of trade secrets and further citing the relevance of the hard drive?s contents to the underlying claims, the inability to obtain the evidence elsewhere, and defendant?s inability to explain its statement that the hard drive in question had been ?recycled?; court held that plaintiff was ?not entitled to set the conditions of the inspection unilaterally nor select the person who will perform it? and ordered the parties to confer to agree on a protocol

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of hard drive

MPCA King of Spades v. T.E.C. 2 Broad., Inc., No. 1:11cv00080, 2012 WL 1203372 (W.D. Va. Apr. 10, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: In litigation including claims that defendants had publically broadcast plaintiffs? copyrighted music without permission, the court noted that the question of ?what songs have been played and when? was at the ?heart? of the litigation and that the inability to retrieve that information in an ?easily accessible format? was the result of defendants? failure to preserve such that mirror imaging was warranted to determine if deleted programming logs could be restored and ordered that defendant bear the risk of any possible interruption to its ability to broadcast while the copying occurred (i.e., plaintiff would not be liable for any interruption in programming)

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Programming logs

Clark Cnty. v Jacobs Facilities, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-00194-LRH-PAL, 2012 WL 4609427 (D. Nev. Oct. 1, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Despite inadvertently producing (or discussing without objection) the at-issue document as many as times thirteen times, the court found that privilege was not waived where the parties stipulated that inadvertent production would not result in waiver and where the analysis under Fed R Evid 502 resulted in a finding that reasonable steps were taken to prevent disclosure, including key word searches for privileged documents, and that prompt steps were taken to secure the document?s return upon defendant learning of the inadvertent production; notably, it appeared that the document was not identified either because it was labeled ?client-attorney? rather than ?attorney-client?

Nature of Case: Alleged gross mismanagement of construction project result in significant costs to plaintiff

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

United States v. Warner, No. C 11-04181 LB, 2012 WL 6087193 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought the government?s production of all communications between himself and the government, all documents concerning its debt collection policies, and information related to the government?s debt collection efforts related to his debt, the court found that the government?s burden argument was unpersuasive where it lacked specific information to support the claim and where, pursuant to the factors in Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii), the burden did not outweigh the benefit of the requested discovery

Nature of Case: Student loan debt collection

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Motion to Compel